News & Articles

Suppose you have a petulant child who hates your brother Jim and does not want him to visit your home. You have shut the child down, but the child just whines and screams. You know reasoning does not work. So you just say, OK, Jim cannot come for no reason. But if Jim has a reason, he can come. You are giving your child a lollipop. The child shows off his lollipop. The next time, Jim comes, you tell the child, but Jim wants to visit family. That’s a reason. And he will not come for no reason. I promise. Give the child another lollipop and hope the child forgets about this in 120 days.
That sums up the Supreme Court’s decision to lift the temporary restraining order against Trump’s travel ban. It has no substance, does not really impact anyone, and gives Trump his lollipop.

As I have said in my blog before, there is no justification for the travel ban on 6 countries: Syria, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya. Are there terrorist cells in these countries? Yes, of course. But the procedures in place already have the US Consulate performing extreme security checks before an individual is granted visa to enter the US. At one point in time, during the Obama administration, some suspected terrorists entered the US. They were deported and Obama suspended travel for these countries until a more thorough vetting procedure was implemented. But that was done, and no suspected terrorists have entered since. So clearly Trump just want to appease his intolerant base with the travel ban

The Supreme Court removed the temporary restraining order with a lesser temporary restraining order. The people not impacted are:

1. Anyone with a current visa—even a visitor’s visa issued before June 14, 2017
2. Anyone with a work visa-H, J, L, O,P, R I, F
3. Anyone with an immigrant or non Immigrant (K) family based visa
4. Diplomats

The Only group that is NOT covered are foreign tourists who are coming to USA for visiting sites in the United States. But seriously, how many tourists from these 6 countries do we find, just visiting the Grand Canyon or Disney Land? They have enough problems on their hand to think about expensive vacations. And the super-rich, who can afford to, does have either business or family connections.

B visa holders should bring with them documents showing family ties or business ties. Attending a conference, or lecturing is a valid business tie, and “mother in laws” are valid family relation. (Supreme Court said this, not me). Other visa holders should bring their visa related documents just to be sure.

So in effect, it’s a useless ban. It does affect Muslims, because Muslims are a majority in these countries. Trump said he had “clear victory”, and the ACLU vowed to fight it.
This ban creates fear among many Muslim legal travelers. Attorney’s make money playing into that fear.

We went through hectic preparation and filing in March; held our breath in April for the lottery results. And now we have finally come to the very painful end of the H-1B process. We are getting the actual petitions filed by us, which did not make the lottery; being returned to us by Citizenship and Immigration Service.
Because H-1B have a high burden of proof, the files are big, and it costs the Citizenship and Immigration Service a lot of money to send it back to us by Propriety mail. Although tax payers don’t have to pay for it, it’s still a waste of resources.
What Citizenship and Immigration Service should do to make the process more efficient is:
1. Take names of the employer/employee, Date of birth, evidence of education and do the lottery. We had one client who got selected twice, thereby taking two visa numbers.
2. Once the lottery and the alternative list is done, we need to file before September 30.
I realize that this is not in the interest of Immigration Attorney’s pocket book. But the above is the best solution. However, if Citizenship and Immigration Service wants to enrich our, (Attorney’s) pocketbook, then it could just send the rejection letter and the checks. They could actually e mail it to us, Attorney’s or to Employers.
To see a tear, (a rejected petition) enclosed in a jewel (expensive Priority mail boxes), makes it that much harder.

SB4 was passed by the State of Texas on May 7, 2017, which bans “sanctuary” cities and prohibits elected officials from refusing to comply with the ban. Austin Mayor Steve Adler and Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez have been publicly opposed to the bill from the very beginning. Sheriff Hernandez declared back in January 2017 that she would no longer honor jail detainer requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. As a result, in February 2017 Governor Abbott cut $1.5 million in funding to Travis County over its sanctuary city policies. On May 8, 2017, the State of Texas sued Mayor Adler, the City of Austin, Sheriff Hernandez, and Travis County in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking the federal court to uphold the constitutionality of SB4.

In Houston, Mayor Sylvester Turner has taken a more measured approach. Back in February 2017, Mayor Turner refused to call Houston a sanctuary city and was unconcerned with the Houston Police Department’s policy of not asking about immigration status, due to Supreme Court rulings preventing law enforcement agencies profiling someone regarding his immigration documents. Notably, neither Mayor Turner and the city of Houston, nor any elected officials from Harris County were named as defendants in the State of Texas’ SB-4 lawsuit. However, Mayor Turner stated on June 8, 2017 that he will ask City Council this month to consider whether to join the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of SB4. That vote could come as early as June 21. Since the bill doesn’t take effect until Sept 1, 2017, perhaps Mayor Turner is using his political savvy to avoid to initial wrath of the State of Texas, while placating local city residents who disagree with SB4?